Proton Radius Cannot Be Derived From Standard Model
in [Logic]
|
Prev: The purpose of the Peano Axioms
Next: Abbreviating First Order Logic With Identity and Membership
From: spudnik on 12 Jun 2010 14:45 "your kind" will never attempt to answer any question; what you have been posting is merely absurd at the syllogistic level, hence, entirely "silly," where all known properties of electromagnetism, which are wavey, dysappear into a loose hydrodynamic metaphor, replacing "energy" with "aether" -- and that is an odd mental spazzm. funny, as all of this could be exposed, merely by taking some aspect of a real two-hole experiment, like the actual details of the uncited fullerene set-up, into account waves can ne'er be particles, whether a mathematical duality can be applied in a formularium of a phenomenon a la momentum; for instance, How is a water-wave to be known as a particle ... um, a hydron? even Burt goes further than you, with his sad nonsequiters; yours are only misnomers & oxymora ("global" warming, when insolation is totally differential from pole to equator e.g.). [NB, your kind is iff MPC#, period.] so, What did you understood of "the following?" > A=Mc^2, where A is aether and M is matter, > the following is easily understood: "If a body gives off the energy L > in the form of radiation, its mass diminishes by L/c2." --Stop BP's and Waxman's arbitrageurs' wetdream "Captain Tax as according to the God-am WSUrinal" -- and they LOVE his '91 bill! http://wlym.com
From: BURT on 12 Jun 2010 17:00 On Jun 12, 11:45 am, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > "your kind" will never attempt to answer any question; > what you have been posting is merely absurd at the syllogistic level, > hence, entirely "silly," where all known properties of > electromagnetism, > which are wavey, dysappear into a loose hydrodynamic metaphor, > replacing "energy" with "aether" -- and that is an odd mental spazzm. > funny, as > all of this could be exposed, merely by taking some aspect > of a real two-hole experiment, like the actual details > of the uncited fullerene set-up, into account > > waves can ne'er be particles, whether a mathematical duality can > be applied in a formularium of a phenomenon a la momentum; for > instance, > How is a water-wave to be known as a particle ... um, a hydron? > > even Burt goes further than you, > with his sad nonsequiters; yours are only misnomers & oxymora > ("global" warming, when insolation is totally differential > from pole to equator e.g.). [NB, your kind is iff MPC#, period.] > > so, What did you understood of "the following?" > > > A=Mc^2, where A is aether and M is matter, > > the following is easily understood: "If a body gives off the energy L > > in the form of radiation, its mass diminishes by L/c2." > > --Stop BP's and Waxman's arbitrageurs' wetdream "Captain Tax as > according to the God-am WSUrinal" -- and they LOVE his '91 bill!http://wlym.com The proton is 3 point quarks. They are infinitely small energy points together with zero inbetween. The only thing extended about them is their electric field and electric bond energy. Mitch Raemsch Mitch Raemsch
From: spudnik on 16 Jun 2010 20:42 you rock; massless rocks o'light pertaining to A=mcc -- Yahoo!TM so, please, follow-up with that macro; thank *you*. > "If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, > its mass diminishes by L/c2." thus&so: it seems that Kooblee and Androcles and Arindam beleive: nothing changes, at all, at light speed, even if it is the ultimate speed. (or, they think that photons are rocks o'light with no mass nor momentum .-) of course, there is nothing unusual about the "symmetric twins, " and there was ne'er any paradox; even less than with Russell's illiterate, tenseless ones -- I'm just sayin', all Cretins are liars; me, three! > http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008arXiv0804.2008N > "We introduce a symmetric twin paradox whose solution can not be found > within the currently accepted provinces of the STR. thus&so: doc Atlas, there is no paradox, if you accept that there is no phenomenon, including sub-atomic angular momenta, that"goes" faster than light. see, it was only a "twin paradox" til explained via Einstein et al's extension of Galilean relativity -- a strawman, really. are you going to argue Ole Roemer's dyscovery of the "retardation" of light, way back, when ever? your proposed "balancing" is almost cute, but iff they accelerate at the same average rate, there clocks'll be in synch at the rendezvous; so, you've described a Twins Miming Each Other "experiment," a null perfection, unlike M&M's results & their refinements. just get rid of the useless notion of Minkowski's phase-space, and you won't have to think so God-am hard about it. > Go ahead and start the calculation then for the time where each twin > coast away or towards each other without any acceleration and with non- --Stop BP's Waxman's arbitrageurs' CAP&TRADE Last Bail-out of Wall Street, the City of London and George Soros et al ad vomitorium! http://larouchepub.com --Fermat's next theorem! http://wlym.com
From: Y.Porat on 17 Jun 2010 00:44
On May 15, 11:51 pm, waldofj <wald...(a)verizon.net> wrote: > On May 12, 8:54 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 11, 6:43 pm, waldofj <wald...(a)verizon.net> wrote: > > > > On May 10, 4:01 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 10, 2:21 pm, waldofj <wald...(a)verizon.net> wrote: > > > > > > > Your statement that the photon is always detected as a particle is > > > > > > still factually false. > > > > > > I thought that was always the case. Of course I'm thinking in terms of > > > > > the Copenhagen interpretation of QM. When is a photon not detected as > > > > > a particle? > > > > have you heard of wave/particle duality? > > > > > Particles do not exhibit interference. > > > > sure they dohttp://www.haverford.edu/physics/love/teaching/Physics302PJL2009Recit... > > > As I said, one approach is to label photons as "particles" and then > > completely revise what is meant by the word "particle" to suit. > > here is a definition of particle I found on the web: > a. A body whose spatial extent and internal motion and structure, if > any, are irrelevant in a specific problem. > b. An elementary particle > > I think of elementary as meaning indivisible, or smallest unit. That's > what I mean when I call a photon a particle. I'm not revising > anything. I guess I just don't know what you mean by "particle". > > > > > > > Photons do. > > > > they can under the appropriate circumstances. > > > > > Just as an example. > > > > Light consists of photons, but an assembly of photons has a property > > > > called wavelength, which can be directly measured with a grating > > > > spectrometer with great precision. > > > > you're way off base here. Wavelength is not a property of an assembly > > > of photons but a property of each individual photon, as per > > > e = hf > > > e = hc/lamda > > > lamda = hc/e > ----------------------------------- why do you have to look far in out of date books while here in this humble ng i was proving that hf IS NOT THE FORMULA OF A 'SINGLE PHOOTN' IT IS A FORMULA OF A HUGE NUMBER OF REAL SINGLE PHOTONS !! THAT ARE EMITTED DURING ONE SECOND** th e photon does not know what is a second !!! i showed that th e real "single photon' is emitted during a much sorter time probably short as the PLANCK TIME'!!! so the real energy of a single photon is about exp-73 Joules !!!!!!! AND YOU CAN GET AS WELL ITS MASS BY DIVIDING IT BY c^2 !!! see the thread 'a better new definition of the real single photon' in that case NO ONE WILL EVER DETECT THE 'REAL SINGLE PHOTON ' WITH ANY HUMAN ( DEVISED )EXPERIMENT TOOL !!! 2 th e 'radius' of the Proton will never be found since THE PROTON IS NOT A SPHERE !!! (:-) IT IS A LONGISH SHAPE just as a curious prove you cant make a sphere from 3 quarks that is basic geometry!! but many other reasons why it is not a sphere ***it is a longish shape** WITH POLES - A FRONT POLE AND A BACK POLE THAT ARE NOT IDENTICAL !!! see my abstract http://sites.google.com/site/theyporatmodel/an-abstract ATB Y.Porat ------------------------ > |